After President Obama announced he would push for a $2 trillion reduction in health insurance costs over the next decade, Connecticut policymakers scrambled to reassess multiple proposals for reform at the state level as the Connecticut General Assembly”™s session nears its scheduled close.
Last week in Hartford, the Universal Healthcare Foundation of Connecticut rallied hundreds of supporters to lobby the Connecticut General Assembly and the Rell administration to support SustiNet. The plan would convert the health plan for state employees to a self-funded model, and open enrollment to small businesses, in theory reducing their premiums. Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed a similar proposal last year, but stated she was open to reconsidering the idea; the Connecticut Business and Industry Association also opposed the plan.
Both SustiNet and a similar bill dubbed the Connecticut Healthcare Partnership supported would create “medical homes” in which physicians or nurses would closely monitor the health records of their clients, in theory producing better preventative health procedures and cutting costs in the long term.
The Connecticut bills sparked similar proposals in New Hampshire, Iowa and other states, according to the New York City-based Progressive States Network. As Connecticut and other states reconsider major health care reform, they do so as the federal government also considers a major overhaul ”“ but with no action likely before August, two months after the Connecticut legislative session is scheduled to adjourn.
In early May, the assembly held a forum on opportunities for health care reform at the federal and state level in the current economy.
“We need to think about (being) health care ready, or as I said to some of my colleagues, Obama-ready,” said Chris Donovan of Meriden, speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives. “We have proposals that are very much linked to what is happening at the federal government (level).”
U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, who represents Danbury, testified at the hearing, noting that Congress and the Obama administration could use the federal Budget Reconciliation Act to push through an overhaul of the health system this year.
“This would be ”¦ an unprecedented usage of that power,” Murphy said, “but this is an unprecedented time.”
Murphy thought the most realistic chances for federal reform would involve some form of a mandate requiring insurance for citizens, similar to a plan Massachusetts enacted that creates tax penalties for individuals not carrying insurance, or for many employers not offering coverage.
“Massachusetts did this through an individual mandate; there is still conversation about an employer mandate,” Murphy said. “I frankly think it is more realistic that you will get an individual mandate which guarantees that everyone has to enter into the insurance market, understanding that the only way you can make an individual mandate work is that you provide some pretty significant subsidies for people at the lower end of the spectrum. ”¦ There is a lot of very realistic talk about employers of a certain size who aren”™t prepared to offer insurance to have a responsibility to pay into a fund in order to help pay for the subsidies that will flow to lower-income individuals and workers.”
Any reform at the state and federal level will require buy-in from the corporate sector, including health care providers, insurance carriers, and the companies that foot much of their workers”™ premiums.
“There is a high likelihood of healthcare reform this year, (and) we think it”™s in the industry”™s interest and our interest,” said Jay Gellert, CEO of Health Net Inc., speaking with investment analysts this month. “We believe that reform will add a number of people to the commercial and Medicaid population … It will also free up the low end of small group and individual markets, where we believe we have developed compelling offerings.”
